Brief translation:The Prophet (PBUH) visited the grave where Abu-Jahl, Umayya ibn Khalaf and many other polytheists who were killed in the battle of Badr were buried and called them out saying, "Did you find what God promised you to be true? I found what God promised me to be true!" People were surprised by this and asked him, "O Messenger of God, do you call people whose corpses have rotted?" He replied, "You do not hear me better than they do, but they cannot answer." Reported by An-Nasaa'i and Ibn Hanbal.

The basis for such claim would be that the hadeeth contradicts the verses, in that it states that the Prophet (PBUH) could make the dead hear him, while the verses state that he cannot.

Such claim would be invalid, because what the verses talk about is not literal hearing, it's getting the Message. In fact, the verses may also be metaphorically referring to disbelievers as dead people, since verses like

clearly equate faith with life.

As for literal hearing, the dead hear the living, per many hadeeths. They hear the clicking of their shoes as they leave after the funeral, they hear their prayers for them and they hear their crying for them.

None of the books I read so far about abrogation has come near this verse,

Which may be said to have been abrogated by

A cursory reading of 20:118 would leave one thinking that Adam and Eve were not naked in the Garden and would never be. But 7:22 implies that they became naked.

Is that an abrogation case? Of course not. To begin with, both verses are statements of fact. But what is more important is that the guarantee God gave Adam and Eve in 20:118-119 was contingent upon their obedience of God's command. How do we know that? From the preceding verse,

The other argument I can think of is that Adam and Eve were naked in the Garden but they did not realize it. Like children, they did not view their privates with any significance. We can make this conclusion because of verses like,

Emphasis on "Was concealed from them."Thus, God's promise that they will not be naked must mean that they will not associate any shame with their nakedness. Unless, that is, they disobey God.

It is particularly interesting to notice that God has not promised Adam and Eve immortality or permanence of reign. These are the two angles Satan entered from.

A cursory reading of 20:118 would leave one thinking that Adam and Eve were not naked in the Garden and would never be. But 7:22 implies that they became naked.

Is that an abrogation case? Of course not. To begin with, both verses are statements of fact. But what is more important is that the guarantee God gave Adam and Eve in 20:118-119 was contingent upon their obedience of God's command.

Muhammad Al-Ghazaali brings up this pair of verses in the chapter about abrogation in his book نظرات في القرآن, page 208. He talks about it as a case of specification after generalization. It sure is, but how come nobody cited it as an abrogation case?

sounds like it would be abrogated by

Since 5:3 does not specify what blood, while 6:145 clearly says that the forbidden blood is the kind shed in plenty.

Since Chapter 5 was revealed after Chapter 6 (validation rule #6), the reverse claim could have been made, i.e., any blood is now prohibited. But that would violate our validation rule #11.

In his book قصص الحيوان في القرآن, pages 58-64, Ash-Sha`raawi brings up an observation that should have been claimed as an abrogation within 5:3 but apparently wasn't. Here is the verse for reference,

That issue is the parsing of the exception إلا ما ذكيتم (except what you have purified). Does the exception apply to all types of meat listed before it, or to a subset of them?

He cites the ruling of Ali, may God have been pleased with him, that if one catches a livestock which is dying of lack of Oxygen, المنخنقة, of a beating, الموقوذة, or a fall, المتردية, before it dies then says the name of God on it and slaughters it such that blood comes out, then it is a lawful slaughter and is permitted to eat. Ibn Abbaas ruled likewise and included an animal that is dying after an attack by another animal, النطيحة. Ibn Abbaas additionally asserted that the exception "except what you have purified" does not apply to dead animals, spilled blood, or swine meat. At-Tabari agrees and adds animals that were dedicated to other than God, ما أهل لغير الله به, as well as what a lion started eating, if the animal has not yet died and was purified by proper slaughter. That was the ruling of Qataada, An-Nakh`i, Taawoos, Ubaydullah ibn Umar, Ad-Dhahhaak and Ibn Zayd.

The grammatical issue of what an exception applies to if it follows a conjunction of words has been discussed in the literature but was not decided. As we showed in the 24:5/24:4 abrogation claim, some scholars have maintained that it applies to all words in the conjunction, while others insisted it only applies to the last one. Here we have a selection within the conjunction to which the exception applies. A new opinion! But I agree with it. I think that exceptions must be reconciled with all other mentions of the subject matter in the Quran in order to fully comprehend them.

Al-Jabri, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ بين الإثبات والنفي, page 197, gives a case that may be thought of as an abrogation case, a claim nobody made even though it matches criteria they used for other claims, and refutes it. He says that

And

");
}//-->

appear to contradict

And

He explains that these are two stages in the Hereafter, just like when criminals in this life before and after they are convicted. I'd add that this explanation suggests that once convicted, a person in the Hereafter is then stamped somehow on their features, since that is what 55:41 says.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum